VR Ball like KFM360 represents an interesting arrangement. When you describe adjusting the ratio of direct and reflected sound in post I assume you are doing so by introducing signal from the forward-facing figure-8 pair placed immediately above the flush-mounted omnis, creating a somewhat more forward-sensitive virtual pickup pattern. At frequencies below the LF rolloff of the figure-8, the resulting virtual pattern will revert to omnidirectional retaining the LF extension of the omnis, yet without the additional forward-facing sensitivity provided by the fig-8s above their LF rolloff. Do you make any EQ compensation for that to achieve the equivalent response in the forward-axis as a pair of omnis alone, or do you find doing so unnecessary?

Further, in the video I see you have the vertically-oriented (Z-axis) figure-8 capsules unique to VR Ball in place in addition to the forward-facing figure-8 pair. Did you find freedom in that axis useful for this recording with regards to fine-tuning the vertical angle of the virtual stereo pair? For those unfamiliar with this, what I am describing is somewhat analogous to adjusting the "look down" angle of a pair of standard microphones placed in the same position so that they are parallel to the floor or angled downward or upward slightly. However it is somewhat different in detail in that it will not produce the same HF response variation as varying the on/off-axis angle of standard end-address omnis.

Found the following VR Ball piano recording which features comparisons of the direct output of it's 3 channel pairs (omnis, forward facing 8's, vertical facing 8's) as well as various combinations of them producing virtual patterns- https://youtu.be/5InP97qI6KU It was posted to youtube about 1.5 years ago, yet had not been linked from this thread, and provides a good example of the directivity options one can derive after the recording is made.

The samples in the comparison are not individually normalized, so one can hear not only the change in pickup pattern but also the increase in the level across the bandwidth of the fig-8 I mentioned in my earlier post, in those positive-polarity combinations of the omni and fig-8(s) which increase forward directionality toward the piano.

At frequencies below the LF rolloff of the figure-8, the resulting virtual pattern will revert to omnidirectional retaining the LF extension of the omnis, yet without the additional forward-facing sensitivity provided by the fig-8s above their LF rolloff. Do you make any EQ compensation for that to achieve the equivalent response in the forward-axis as a pair of omnis alone, or do you find doing so unnecessary?

I want to chime in and say I watched/listened to most of that performance over airpod pros and the Sound quality is excellent. I could hear some dimensionality and stage width even with the airpods. Thanks for posting.

I want to chime in and say I watched/listened to most of that performance over airpod pros and the Sound quality is excellent. I could hear some dimensionality and stage width even with the airpods. Thanks for posting.

Really lovely recordings! Thank you for making them available for us to hear.

In addition to demonstrating the quality of your microphones, these videos are a great resource for TS members to compare different microphone setups as used on the same source, without too many extraneous variables. In particular, this one- https://youtu.be/tadZiWFkGHo which came up next on the Youtube play listafter the one above. Apologies if this one was already linked to earlier in the thread.

A beautiful sentiment and a lovely recording. Very nice rendition by the VRBall.

The imaging is clear, precise and natural - to the degree that I found myself closing my eyes during the closer panning shots because during those moments the visual and audio images no longer had the same close congruence that they do in the overall establishing view. This is a complement on the audio quality, not a criticism of the camera work.

Hello, choir director here. I am very familiar with this piece, having performed and recorded the original SATB version several times myself (and been in charge of tuning all of the glasses - not an easy or quick process). You don't hear the men's arrangement very often, so this was a treat to hear. I think this choir is excellent, with particularly good intonation.

Clearly these are excellent mics, but I wanted a different ratio of direct vs diffuse sound to balance the voices more evenly. I would have chosen to set my array several feet farther back from the choir, and/or to reduce the level of the mid mic. I hope you don't mind the constructive criticism. I have run into the same exact problem before when recording a chamber choir with a Schoeps Mid-side array, where I was forced to be much closer than was optimal in order to avoid an audience walking path.

The glasses get lost in the mix whenever the choir rises above a soft dynamic, but that is due to the choice of using lower-octave glasses, which do not project as well as higher ones. This is something I discovered when choosing glasses for my choir. The conductor may have done that to better match the register of the men's voices, which is understandable. It's just a problem of physics.

Hi voltronic, wow, tuning those glasses is some kind of job. I've seem them doing this in backstage, next to a drinking fountain. This male choir is among the best in Taiwan, started as an alumni choir of a high school, and this is 20 years after.The taste of direct/ambient ratio is always vary according to personal taste, and I do understand this. I tend to record more direct sound for in case they want more ambient, I can add easier than taking out in case they want more direct sound.That is also the reason why I choose to use my VR Ball later on, for as simple as mixing, direct/reflect ratio can be changed easily, and even during the music, I can alter it without any artifacts in the audio.Here is another piece by the same composer, in another auditorium:Only in sleephttps://youtu.be/_5F7_NPdRlgRecorded by the VR Ball microphone for the choir, a spot mic for the solo soprano.

Hello, choir director here. I am very familiar with this piece, having performed and recorded the original SATB version several times myself (and been in charge of tuning all of the glasses - not an easy or quick process). You don't hear the men's arrangement very often, so this was a treat to hear. I think this choir is excellent, with particularly good intonation.

Clearly these are excellent mics, but I wanted a different ratio of direct vs diffuse sound to balance the voices more evenly. I would have chosen to set my array several feet farther back from the choir, and/or to reduce the level of the mid mic. I hope you don't mind the constructive criticism. I have run into the same exact problem before when recording a chamber choir with a Schoeps Mid-side array, where I was forced to be much closer than was optimal in order to avoid an audience walking path.

The glasses get lost in the mix whenever the choir rises above a soft dynamic, but that is due to the choice of using lower-octave glasses, which do not project as well as higher ones. This is something I discovered when choosing glasses for my choir. The conductor may have done that to better match the register of the men's voices, which is understandable. It's just a problem of physics.